What stupid shit has Trump done today?

[Cloo]

Oh, Trump's excuse for that tweet was that it was written by one of his lawyers. His lawyer 'Tronald Dump' presumably.

Of course, even if true that doesn't make it any better.

 

[teqniq]

Someone has also advised him that 'you do know you have the right to remain silent' in relation to that tweet.

 

[teqniq]

For those foolish enough to believe that the DNC as it stands holds the answers.

 

[DotCommunist]

When crude tweets set the global agenda we are surely in a new age of politics | Kenan Malik

bit in the paper today I thought was interesting

This reactionary counter-culture has spilled into the offline world and right into the White House. Donald Trump appropriated the essence, if not the tone, of the online alt-right transgressors, perfecting a mixture of narcissism, self-aggrandisement and the elicitation of liberal outrage that helped intoxicate many disaffected voters. It turned rage about the political elite into hostility against the supposed symbols of elite politics – Muslims, migrants, the marginalised. Trumpism is the product of the evacuation of politics from the political sphere, the replacement of policies and ideas with symbols and signalling. Trump’s policies are, of course, deeply political and have grave real-life consequences for everyone from Muslims to poor Americans on Obamacare, from African Americans to hurricane victims in Puerto Rico.

Yet, from the Mexican wall to the visa restrictions on Muslim majority countries, the public pronouncements are less about practical policies than about expressing the right attitude and of being contemptuous of liberal norms. Symbolism has always been part of politics. In the age of Trump, it is politics. The fact that a single series of tweets should so dominate British politics suggests that, just as Trump and his supporters define themselves through eliciting outrage, so many of his critics do so by expressing it. In a special parliamentary session, MPs lined up to pour opprobrium over the US president. The press was equally self-righteous; Trump should be banned from visiting “Britain’s multicultural nation until he learns some manners”, as the Independent put it. This was as much signalling as were Trump’s tweets.
The one clear winner is Britain First. The thrusting of an odious fringe group into the global spotlight has led to a debate about how such a story should be reported. The media, many protest, should not be giving a hate group so much publicity. It is true that the media often make insignificant figures appear important because they fit a particular narrative. For years, Anjem Choudary, founder of the Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, which only ever possessed a handful of members, was forever to be found on our TV screens, as if he was an important voice within the “Muslim community”, rather than an obnoxious clown with good televisual skills.

In the case of Britain First, however, it was the president who put it in the public eye. The question the media need to ask themselves is not if they should give publicity to a fringe group, but why they became obsessed with Trump’s tweets. At the same time, it is important that the media do not censor debates or refuse to cover hate groups simply because their views are unsavoury. In Kill All Normies, Nagle argues that restrictions of “political correctness” and of liberal “call-out culture” helped create a backlash that turned into the transgressive alt-right. Some make a similar argument about Britain First. “Britain first [sic] is what you get when you reject legitimate concerns about Islam and uncontrolled immigration,” tweeted former Ukip and Leave EU funder Arron Banks.

 

[redsquirrel]

Their membership has gone up though.

You got those membership figures yet?

 

[gosub]

I can't out which is supposed to be the distraction. Do you spend you time looking up who said what to who when in Stupid Watergate or uncovering the porkbarrel politics literally handwritten on the tax bill?

 

[pesh]

Stupid Watergate

 

[CRI]

For those foolish enough to believe that the DNC as it stands holds the answers.

Uh, like "his" amendment stood a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and ALL the Democratic Party Senators voted against the bill in its entirety but hey, whatever.

Not like Sanders is short of a bob or two to be fair (although if he released his tax returns, we'd not be guessing.) .

 

[CRI]

Stupid Watergate

Nostalgia time - hands up if you remember watching the Watergate hearings on telly?

 

[teqniq]

Uh, like "his" amendment stood a snowball's chance in hell of passing, and ALL the Democratic Party Senators voted against the bill in its entirety but hey, whatever.

Not like Sanders is short of a bob or two to be fair (although if he released his tax returns, we'd not be guessing.) .

What the fuck are you wittering on about? Oh I see play the man not the ball eh?

 

[gosub]

Stupid Watergate

can't take credit its John Oliver, but more apt by the day

 

[a_chap]

Nostalgia time - hands up if you remember watching the Watergate hearings on telly?

I remember watching "All the president's men" at the cinema when it first came out. Does that count?

I was only 12 and I struggled to follow all the plot. But, you know, I was only 12.

 

[CRI]

What the fuck are you wittering on about? Oh I see play the man not the ball eh?

More like what the fuck is "Rose the Cat" wittering on about. No Democrats or Independents were allowed to amend the bill. They weren't even given time to read the damned thing before they were forced to vote.

The tweet gives the impression Senator Sanders had a genuine chance to amend the bill and Senator Warner poleaxed it. You do understand that that's garbage, don't you?

Looks like it was really just a chance to have a pop at a multi-millionaire the person hates for not "giving way" to a different multi-millionaire (sure, fewer multiples but still loaded,) that they adore. Pretty rich, in both senses of the word.

 

[CRI]

I remember watching "All the president's men" at the cinema when it first came out. Does that count?

I was only 12 and I struggled to follow all the plot. But, you know, I was only 12.

I was only a bit younger at the time of Watergate, but my parents watched the hearings every damned night. Christ it was dull. I couldn't follow that plot, either, but I started drawing cartoons of them for something to do.

 

[spring-peeper]

Had one of Dad's friends over from Barbados. All he did was sit in front of the television and watch the Watergate proceedings . When I asked him why, he said that it was fascinating.

I was a healthy 12 year old, it was summer holidays and I was on my way out to enjoy the day. His decision to stay in a dark basement was beyond my comprehension.

 

[CRI]

Jared Kushner failed to disclose he led a foundation funding illegal Israeli settlements before U.N. vote

Hot water, he's in it up to his lugs.

Jared Kushner failed to disclose his role as a co-director of the Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation from 2006 to 2015, a time when the group funded an Israeli settlement considered to be illegal under international law, on financial records he filed with the Office of Government Ethics earlier this year.

The researchers suggested Kushner’s failure may have been more than an inadvertent mistake, but instead an attempt to avoid "potential conflicts with his job negotiating Middle East peace." Newsweek later independently confirmed Kushner's omission on his multiple financial disclosures.

Kushner demanded future National Security Adviser Mike Flynn "get on the phone to every member of the Security Council and tell them to delay the vote" on the West Bank settlement resolution. . . may have violated over the 200-years-old law called the Logan Act, which bars "unauthorized citizens" from negotiating with "foreign governments having a dispute with the United States."

 

[Cloo]

How outrageous is he going to get to try to wriggle out of this? Fire the FBI?

 

[steveo87]

Trump's response, which I think is basically 'No *we* fired him for lying. Honest. So don't believe him when he says I asked him to put us on to Russia'

The porn under the bed response.

"Look, there's no porn under my bed. No porn whatsoever. No playboy, no hustler, no reader's wives. Just a couple of old socks, maybe an empty bottle of pop [or soda]."

"It's beastiality, isn't it Trump?"

Not only is there a lot to see, it's really really bad.

 

[Cloo]

Not only is there a lot to see, it's really really bad.

Let's hope so. But it feels like there's been false dawns before, that X or Y will 'definitely' take him down, and it hasn't happened. This does seem more plausible, but he is so powerful I have this fear he'll find a way to make it go away, no matter how outrageous, and it will play to his gallery as 'draining the swamp' that doesn't want him to be President because they're the baddies, and taking decisive, strong action, rather than being an utterly corrupt toad.

 

[a_chap]

Forgive me asking an obvious or simplistic question but...

Given that we had riots after the imposition of the grossly unfair "poll" tax, why aren't there similar riots in the US in the wake of Trump's "fuck the poor'n'middle classes" tax bill?

 

[Smangus]

Let's hope so. But it feels like there's been false dawns before, that X or Y will 'definitely' take him down, and it hasn't happened. This does seem more plausible, but he is so powerful I have this fear he'll find a way to make it go away, no matter how outrageous, and it will play to his gallery as 'draining the swamp' that doesn't want him to be President because they're the baddies, and taking decisive, strong action, rather than being an utterly corrupt toad.

I think the wheels on this Russia thing are going to grind slowly but surely to his end, not in a big bang way but no less dramatic.

 

[gosub]

I think the wheels on this Russia thing are going to grind slowly but surely to his end, not in a big bang way but no less dramatic.

Republicans won't impeach (and there isn't the numbers without them), he'll get his tax thing through and then have "health concerns"

 

[CRI]

Forgive me asking an obvious or simplistic question but...

Given that we had riots after the imposition of the grossly unfair "poll" tax, why aren't there similar riots in the US in the wake of Trump's "fuck the poor'n'middle classes" tax bill?

I think one difference is that many of those who will be worst affected by measures in this tax bill either aren't aware of what the impact it will have on them, or they're in denial, and believe the lies about it being "good" for the country and for them. Some of them might start to shake it up a bit when they feel the implications personally, but others will keep on believing GOP lies and blame the Democrats, or Muslims, or Mexicans or someone else for it.

The Women's March in January was pretty huge, but at that stage, I don't think anyone realised just how ghastly things would be, and there weren't tangent things to be rallying against, as with the Poll Tax demos. Of course in the mean time, there have been changes in policy and law that make it harder to have demonstrations and that give more power to the police to act against demonstrators, so maybe some won't feel able to take the risk.

 

[CRI]

Republicans won't impeach (and there isn't the numbers without them), he'll get his tax thing through and then have "health concerns"

I can only hope the bill will get held up as they're trying to pick through it, long enough for the heads of enough GOP legislators to fall in the 2018 midterms. Of course, the country will be up against doubled down gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts, as well as voting systems that we already know are antiquated and susceptible to errors and hacking, so, who knows?

 

[a_chap]

I think one difference is that many of those who will be worst affected by measures in this tax bill either aren't aware of what the impact it will have on them, or they're in denial

Really? Are north americans that bereft of "news channels" ?

 

[Cloo]

I think the wheels on this Russia thing are going to grind slowly but surely to his end, not in a big bang way but no less dramatic.

Yes, if it does come off, that's my feeling, it's not going to be quick.

 

[Tankus]

• Summer Zervos, who accused Trump of sexually harassing her in 2007, is suing him for defamation because he called her and other accusers liars.
  [*]Trump's lawyers will argue in a New York court on Tuesday that the lawsuit should be thrown out because he is a sitting president.
  [*]But former President Bill Clinton was deposed while he was a sitting president over allegations of sexual harassment by Paula Jones. Later, when he was found to have lied under oath, he was impeached by the House of Representatives.
  [*]"People are going to find out who this guy really is," Mindy McGillivray, one of Trump's accusers

Trump's legal team is also expected to argue on Tuesday that the president's statements referring to his accusers as "liars" amounted to political speech and should therefore be protected from legal action.

"All of the statements occurred on political forums — a campaign website, on Mr. Trump’s Twitter account, in a presidential debate, and at campaign rallies — where the listeners expect to hear public debate, taken as political opinion rather than a defamatory statement," Trump's lawyers wrote in a court filing last month.

Trump may testify against sexual harassment claims of more than 12 women

Best reality show ever

 

[gosub]

Best reality show ever

Can't he just do Bake Off like normal people?

 

[Tankus]

Covfefe pie....made with real banana skins.....

I wonder if there will be a legal move to get the outakes of the apprentice ...alleged to be sitting in a safe somewhere ?

 

[coley]

Forgive me asking an obvious or simplistic question but...

Given that we had riots after the imposition of the grossly unfair "poll" tax, why aren't there similar riots in the US in the wake of Trump's "fuck the poor'n'middle classes" tax bill?

Because TTT has given the GOP a 'victory' over the 'snowflakes' a certain class of Americans would live in caves rather than accept Blacks, or other ' non 'whites' could achieve equality.